Missing routes.

[aq1018caa]

'use strict';

var Hapi = require('hapi');
var server  = new Hapi.Server('127.0.0.1', 3000);
var fn = function(req, reply) { reply('ok'); };

var resources = {
    services: {
        index: fn,
        show: fn,
        create: fn,
        update: fn,
        destroy: fn,
        hasMany: {
            nodes: {
                index: fn,
                hasMany: {
                    statuses: {
                        index: fn,
                        create: fn,
                    }
                }
            }
        },
    },

    nodes: {
        index: fn,
        show: fn,
        update: fn,
        destroy: fn
    },

    statuses: {
        index: fn,
        create: fn
    }
};

server.pack.require('mudskipper', { namespace: 'api', resources: resources }, function (err) {
    if(!err) { console.log('resources loaded.'); }
});

server.start(function (err) {
    if(!err) { console.log('server started.'); }
});

Run:

curl http://localhost:3000/api/services/1/nodes/2/statuses

Result:

{"statusCode":404,"error":"Not Found"}

Expected:

ok

[aq1018caa]

With a slightly different configuration, the /api/nodes route was gone in my own project. This is really strange...

[aq1018caa]

I think internals.resources is the culprit here. If a nested resource and a root level resource have the same name, either one will be overwritten depending on the parsing order. internals.resources need to be scope in order to take into account resources with the same name but with different scoping levels.

[nlf]

Ah, that would indeed be the exact issue. I never accounted for someone creating an in-place child definition with the same name as a top level resource.

I'll have to think about how to handle this..

[nlf]

Note that the normal way to configure this to get the behavior you're expecting (based on only using the index/create methods in the hasMany definitions) is more like:

var resources = {
    services: {
        index: fn,
        show: fn,
        create: fn,
        update: fn,
        destroy: fn,
        hasOne: 'nodes'
    },

    nodes: {
        index: fn,
        show: fn,
        update: fn,
        destroy: fn,
        hasOne: 'statuses'
    },

    statuses: {
        index: fn,
        create: fn
    }
};

This would generate routes for

• /api/services
• /api/nodes
• /api/statuses
• /api/services/{service_id}/node
• /api/services/{service_id}/node/status
• /api/node/status

[aq1018caa]

I see. However, in my use case the business logic and handlers for the two node resources differ. Although, semantically it is still the same node representation. In the scope of mudskipper, they are two separate resources because they have completely different handlers for their distinct business logics.

[nlf]

I’m working on a fix so that you can define things like you’re expecting. Stay tuned. --  Nathan LaFreniere From: aq1018caa aq1018caa Reply: nlf/mudskipper reply@reply.github.com Date: January 28, 2014 at 9:13:04 AM To: nlf/mudskipper mudskipper@noreply.github.com Subject:  Re: [mudskipper] Missing routes. (#11)
I see. However, in my use case the business logic and handlers for the two node resources differ. Although, semantically it is still the same node representation. In the scope of mudskipper, they are two separate resources because they have completely different handlers for their distinct business logics.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[aaronmccall]

@nlf, this is the problem I was mentioning today.